Blue Jays Not Interested In Jack Wilson
It sounded dubious when it first surfaced, and now J.P. Ricciardi has spoken: the Blue Jays are not interested at all in Jack Wilson. Did the Pittsburgh front office plant that one?
Ricciardi does seem open to trading Josh Towers. As far as I can tell, Towers doesn't reach free agency until after 2009. For an NL team, Towers could help at the back end of a rotation. Thing is, no one seems to be actively searching for a backend rotation guy.
I quite like these two quotes:
"We have no interest in Jack Wilson -- absolutely no interest," Ricciardi said emphatically. "None. I have Jack Wilson. I have John McDonald."
"We'd listen on anybody. I think we'd be foolish not to listen," Ricciardi said. "But we're not going to trade Josh Towers for a bag of doughnuts. I've got to get something back that is a very good player for us to say, 'Hey, we can hang our hat on this guy.'
Posted by: Guitar Hero | July 23, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Haven't you posted an article quoting Kevin Towers as searching for SP depth? A backend rotation guy seems to be exactly what he's looking fot as he has a formidable front 3 with Peavy, Young & Maddux. A Towers trade actually makes alot of sense for the Friars.
Posted by: WestCoastBias | July 23, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Maybe he can send over the recently demoted Royce Ring along with Paul McAnulty, a Jack Cust lite who could benefit from the DH rule.
Posted by: WestCoastBias | July 23, 2007 at 10:50 PM
the Braves could use him after Hudson Smoltz and James and if they acquire Garland they would have a very solid rotation
Posted by: bravesrule14 | July 23, 2007 at 10:56 PM
How about a Jack Wilson-Torres + money for the mets Millidege. This can work.
Posted by: russell | July 23, 2007 at 11:51 PM
I thought the same exact thing when I read this article WCB.
Posted by: GiggityGiggityGoo | July 24, 2007 at 04:04 AM
Milledge for a bench player and a mediocre reliever? Dream on.
Posted by: JerseyMetFan | July 24, 2007 at 08:06 AM